Author
Topic: A Big Megapixel Discussion (Read 99557 times)

I am really hoping they opt for the 5D series body. I think that would make more sense because the 1D series cameras are built for people who shoot high volume work. High megapixel shooters tend to do low more low volume work.

Plus, for all the 5DII users who didn't upgrade to a 5DIII because of a lack of megapixel or IQ improvements, a higher megapixel 5Dx would finally give them a reason to buy a new Canon camera.

...not always. I shoot high volume at times - and I love my 1 series body. I despise the 5-series because of how small the body is - it hurts to shoot for hours on end with it!

I like to see one in an big body and one in an body bigger than the 5D body, but smaller than the 1D body.

Today I send a big mail to the Canon development center with wishes and tests results.

Hey M.ST, you are back to spouting your garbage I see, I thought you had said you were only going to do that directly to the site owners. Maybe you did but they found your imaginary nonsense as laughable as anybody else with half a brain.

Logged

Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Although 39MP would make more sense. 4K-video has 3840 pixels on the long side, and to get 4:4:4 from a CFA sensor you need to bin a full RGGB-cluster, so we're at 7680*5120.And considering how difficult it is to get the max. theoretical resolution from such a camera due to environmental factors one would get more actual detail by removing those choke points first.

Why would canon release a big mpix sensor when they are market leaders? Their sales are good and they have the technology for a while. R&D costs a lot, so proper product releases are key to success...

I've wondered the same thing. Obviously Canon knew exactly what the market was for the 5DIII (Wedding and event photographers) and knew they could charge an initial premium because the high ISO performance offered ipeople a tool they could use to gain a competitive edge.

I've never figured out what market Nikon was aiming for with the D800. They had an embedded base of users who were already invested in Nikon equipment, but the market for the D800 was ill-defined at best. Perhaps they found they were losing market share to Canon and assumed it was because of their smaller megapixel count. Not sure it's really worked out all that well for Nikon.

I'm not sure why Canon would feel compelled to follow Nikon off the high-megapixel cliff. I've always felt the only way it makes some sense would be if they just switched out the sensor in an existing body (most likely the 5DIII) and slapped an "HD" on the description (5D HD). That would keep production and development cost low (especially if they just upsize the 18mp APS-C sensor with a few tweaks). But, I just don't see launching a new high resolution "flagship" when there doesn't appear to be much of a market demand for it.

If you think high megapixels are the end-all and be-all, ask yourself why the flagship Nikon has 16 mp and the flagship Canon has 18 mp.

Big megapixel is a "medium format killer", just as D800 currently is. It's targeting a specific genre, high resolution photography. It's not a journalist camera like the flagships. Sure, for typical 35mm photography high resolution is just a waste of disk space. But a high resolution 35mm is there to stretch into medium format territory, just as medium format digital stretched into large format film (think 4x5 and 8x10 view camera) territory. In other words expand what you can do with a 35mm system. A pro Canon shooter could have a 1DX for fast handheld action work, and a big megapixel camera for studio/still life/architecture/landscape.

Probably the high resolution genre is smaller, but every landscape hobbyist will want it (those are many!), and some of the pro shooters that use medium format today will drop the costly MF system and use only 35mm for convenience. I think Canon need this type of camera in their lineup in the long-term to provide a cameras for all genres users nowadays expect 35mm to be good at.

In the medium format forums the only camera that is considered as real competition with MF is the D800, and indeed several has ditched MF in favour of the more user-friendly, all-around and cheaper D800. In the same forums Canon is still used as an example to show off how "bad" 35mm is compared to MF, as it still has poor dynamic range and color rendition at base ISO compared to MF, while the D800 actually is competitive and even better in some aspects.

Not a single recent sensor out from Canon is even remotely close Sony Exmor sensors in terms of base ISO performance. I'm still waiting to see that Canon actually can produce a sensor which has the properties high resolution photographers desire - ie great dynamic range and great color fidelity at base ISO. High ISO performance (which Canon indeed is good at!) is not irrelevant, but much less important than in traditional 35mm photography.

I shoot medium format digital myself for my landscape photography hobby, and use my Canon system for everything hand-held. I follow the developments closely, a good high resolution camera could be a game changer for users like me. But it must deliver competitive image quality per pixel, not just resolution.

What I love about this whole topic is the disconnect with the reality of how Canon deals with its product cycles.

I see so many saying that the 1dx is being replaced or that this will be the successor to the 5d3. What kool-aid are you guys drinking? Maybe in the rebel world we would see such a rapid move to push out a new product, but not with pro level gear, or near pro level (XXD line). Canon hasn't put out a replacement for the 60D yet, which is a line that gets updated every 1-2 years. So to think we'll see even a rumor for the 5d4 in 2013 is a dream idea - more likely we'll see the dev rumors in 2015, with a potential release in 2016. (Id say the idx will follow a similar pattern...

Big MP --- I am pretty positive that a big mp body will be aimed at a niche audience - studio, landscape, architecture - where the 5d3 is aimed at weddings and event shooters and the 1dx is for wedding, events and sports (5d3 can do sports too, but the slower frame rate).

tech is advancing, but, I keep hearing it from my nikon friends --- while the d800 is a great camera, it's niot their body of choice for weddings. Most rely on the d3s, or d700. I know a few who roll with the d3s and the d800 - but the d800 only comes out for the formals portraits (reasoning - because thats where the strength of the big mp sensor currently is (Low ISO shots), the advantage of the big MP's goes away once you get into the receptions.

I think nikon jumped the gun a little bit with big mp's by trying to make such a camera to act as an all around work machine.

Just a shot in the dark here, but my guess is that we'll see 2 big MP bodies in 2014, a 1d style and a 5d style (not sure what they will name them). Both will probably get the 1dx AF system, digic 6, one will be in the 8k range and the other in the 3-4k range. Neither will have fast frame rates, guessing 2-4 frames per second (1d style will probably get the 4 fps, 5d style would get 2 fps). Emphasis would be on IQ not speed. This would enable canon to funnel this tech into the next round (yes, this would be the 1dx2 and the 5d4). it's a sensible plan - get the new sensor out into its niche market, then by 2016 we'll have digic 7 or 8, our PC's will be that much faster, memory card speeds will be faster and their capacity will be greater and their cost will go down, how about some usb 4 maybe? (Imagine transfering over 2000 45 MP images via usb2, lol, you have lost productive workflow time before you can even begin the workflow at that rate!!!!) -- all of that will lead to bigger mp's in the 1dx2 and 5d3 without comprising on the speed or high ISO performance because how many sports shooters (or wedding shooters) will want to deal with less fps, and a smaller buffer??? (flip that coin too -- DR, yeah, we want more DR, but DR goes away as the ISO increases which is where the current 1dx and 5d3 shine).

I'd much rather wait for the other tech to catch up so we can enjoy the benefits we currently have in canon bodies + more MP's, rather than compromising on certain things like one must do with the current nikon offerings...(again, nikon wedding shooters are hunting for d700's because the price gap to the d3s is too steep, the d600 isn't as good as many thought it would be and the d800 isn't what they hoped it would be).

LOL, the grass is always greener - on the canon boards it's all about more DR and MP and canon has fell behind, on the nikon boards it's people wishing they could have great high ISO with reasonable files sizes and in the 2-3k price range...and that ain't there for them...

canon rumors FORUM

The new MP camera will compete with the new D4x and will use the same sensor tech as the 7D mk ii but tweaked for the pro end. I'd love Canon to address low iso along with dr etc if they're aiming for landscape photographers

And I think they'll consider a body in between the 1d and 5d - the infamous 3D - to appeal to prosumers as this can be legitimately released without alienating 5d III owners...

Just my 2p

Logged

If life is all about what you do in the time that you have, then photography is about the pictures you take not the kit that took it. Still it's fun to talk about the kit, present or future

Why would canon release a big mpix sensor when they are market leaders? Their sales are good and they have the technology for a while. R&D costs a lot, so proper product releases are key to success...

I've wondered the same thing. Obviously Canon knew exactly what the market was for the 5DIII (Wedding and event photographers) and knew they could charge an initial premium because the high ISO performance offered ipeople a tool they could use to gain a competitive edge.

I've never figured out what market Nikon was aiming for with the D800. They had an embedded base of users who were already invested in Nikon equipment, but the market for the D800 was ill-defined at best.

?? Landscape shooters (great DR and MP)? Nature with more reach for wildlife (and it gets you 5fps and 6fps in cropped modes which are perfect and don't waste pixels for distance limited wildlife)?

What exactly was the 5D2 base then compared to the 5D if the D800 wasn't defined??